The Doctrines of Grace

[GodsGrace]

The name is PinSeeker.

Sorry ' bout that Pin.

Suck it up.
You gave ME plenty of cute emoji that I have to accept as replies to my serious posts to you.

I've been very clear; all human beings are born "totally depraved." But I think you think "totally depraved" is something different than what John Calvin meant by that term.


In a sense, yes... from God's perspective, as He is outside of time, infinite, and all time is now to Him. But from our perspective, because we are in time, which is part of God's creation (He is the potentate of time, as the hymn says), no, of course not. God's call comes by His Spirit, and by that we are justified, born again of the Spirit, given saving faith, and thus saved... raised and seated in the heavenly places in Christ, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 2. and thus given eternal life in Christ. Salvation is given when the person is called by God through the inward working of the Spirit in the heart (because of God's grace alone... this is sola gratia). Again, I've been very clear. But, people ask the same questions over and over again, Such is life, I guess.


Nope. See above. It seems you are putting words into my mouth, GodsGrace. But hey, you're surely not the first. <smile>


See above. No one is deserving of eternal life; it cannot be merited. So the grace has to come from... somewhere... someone ~ excuse me again; Someone... else no one would be saved. <smile> But, once given, this grace cannot be resisted, not because we woodenly "can't," but because we won't, because one's heart has been changed from stone to flesh, and having this new spirit, even God's Holy Spirit, he or she will not... his or her will will then be to do the will of his or her Father God, rather than his or her former father the devil.


With this statement you clearly insinuated that the only relevant passages could only possibly come from the New Testament... or that those are the only ones you would accept, which is tantamount to the same thing.


No need. Surely, there are histories, and the wisdom books, and poetry, and some apocalyptic literature... yes, for sure.


Ah, so none of the Psalms, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, or at least parts of Isaiah, or Song of Solomon contain any doctrinal truths. I mean, surely you don't really think that, but... hmmm. Well, you're welcome to your opinion, certainly.


I'm not going to stick solely to the New Testament. Such should not be done. It's all God's Word. And, as you know, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17) There was no New Testament in Paul's day, GodsGrace. "Scripture" was at that time what we know now as the Old Testament.


Sure I can, and have, extensively. But why leave out the Old Testament? And, as I said, Jesus and all the New Testament writers (and Jesus, of course) quote extensively (to put it mildly) from the Old Testament.


Hmmm, well there's plenty of biographical and literal stuff in the Old Testament (I'm thinking of Abraham and Joseph and Moses and David, in particular), and again... well, think of the Old Testament ~ whatever the genre of literature ~ as containing many object lessons of truths made explicit in the New. Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and David we all "types" of Jesus. You know the quote: the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.


I mean, God said he loved Jacob and hated Esau. That's Scripture. You want me to say that He didn't really hate Esau? Well, in a sense, He didn't, but in the sense of conferring salvation, He did. Here again, there are two very different senses of 'hate.' God loved Esau in the sense that He loves all of His creation, but He hated Esau in comparison to Jacob, whom He loved ~ and chose, elected over Esau. You might remember that Jesus says we should love Him and hate our own family, so, in the same way, our love for Jesus is to be far, far greater, even infinitely so, than our love for our family, even to make it in comparison a hate. But yes, in a humanistic sense, surely we love the members of our family.


This is a personal letter from Paul to the Church in Rome, GodsGrace, and at the outset of the letter, he address who he is writing to, saying, "To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints." So, he's writing to Gentile believers in Christ. And he says it again in Romans 11:13, saying, "I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them."

Now... this might confuse you <smile> ...but Paul is actually speaking to Jews in the sense that they are Jews of God, because, as he says in Romans 2:28-29, "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical... a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."

PinSeeker.


This is the withholding of mercy, and the administering of justice.


Well, yes I have... and from the New Testament even! <smile> God's mercy. "Because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace we have been saved" (Ephesians 2:4-5).


Yes, I'm well aware of that. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

And the rest of what's above is nonsense.
Your explanation of God loving Jacob and hating Esau by stating that IT'S SCRIPTURE is laughable.

Sorry...I like to speak to members that are knowledgeable about both their belief system and Christianity in general and HOW TO exegete the bible using hermeneutics.

 

[PinSeeker]

You LOVE to spar.

Good-natured sparring between Christians about the things of God is a good thing. Now, quarreling and disparaging and even insulting should be refrained from completely, and I would exhort you to do just that.

No more posting to you.

LOL! Suit yourself, for sure. <smile> Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord, for sure.

Why is it ridiculous Pin?

PinSeeker. You know why.

Is God playing a sadistic game with us?

Of course not.

According to calvinist theology:

Ah, let's see...

First God creates us and decrees that we would sin...

Well, the creating part is correct, but after that... absolutely not... One! One mischaracterization!

Then He figures out a scheme to get us saved....by accepting His Son who will sacrifice Himself!

Ah, well, this was His plan from all eternity, yes. God atoned for sin Himself in the Person of Christ Jesus, redeeming His elect to Himself; yes.

But wait...scheme not necessary.

Ohhhhh, it was necessary to have a plan, for sure. There was just no "Plan B." <smile>

GOD will decide who is saved and who is not.

Yes, and this is His right as Creator.

Why pay any ransom to anybody? Why Penal Substitution?

Because that would be compromising of His justice and the breaking of His covenant, specifically the one with Abraham. In that case, God would not be... a good God at all... and a breaker of most, if not all His promises.

NO need!

Ohhh... there was a need, of course, and God ~ Jehovah Jireh, "the Lord will provide" ~ provided it, just like He promised He would.

God is doing everything HIMSELF....

In a certain sense, yes. But in another, no.

So not ridiculous Pin.

PinSeeker. You're trying to make me mad, I guess; no matter. Yes and no; your reasoning is... well, it's a mixed bag, at best.

Tired of this tired argument.

Well, only one of us is really "arguing," and it's not me. But I understand how you feel. I am tired of, well, having to say the same things over and over and over, even wide-ranging as it is.

Fact is God WANTED to save.

And provide Way for that to happen, yes. This was His plan from all eternity. As Joseph ~ a "type" of Jesus, remember ~ said to his brothers when they had come to Egypt when they had come to him, fleeing the famine, in Genesis 45.7, "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors." And in the greater/ultimate sense, Jesus says the same thing of Himself, quoting from Isaiah 9 in Matthew 4, and Isaiah 61 in Luke 4, respectively:

• “'The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles ~ the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a Light has dawned.' Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
• "'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.' Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

See the Edenic Covenant. It's conditional.

Yes, all covenants are, and He promises to fulfill both ends of it, especially in the Abramic Covenant. And He does, like I said, in the person of Jesus Christ. Again, this was His plan from all eternity.

God is sovereign.

He is, for sure. But you sell that very short. Unintentionally, I know, but you do. Now, I mean this in all earnestness... you certainly don't mean to have this, but you do have, really, inadvertent as it may be, a low view of God's faithfulness and love and grace. Your idea of God is... well, far too small. Your idea of His love is far too small. And your idea of His amazing grace is far too small.

Adam is the lord of the land/Garden.
Condition: Do Not Eat of the Tree
Blessing: Eternal Life
Curse: Separation from God.

Nothing takes God by surprise. He knew Adam would fail, and a true Champion, a Substitute, was going to be needed. This was His plan from all eternity.

Man failed through his choice to eat of the tree.

Absolutely. So, a Man was needed, to redeem man to Himself. And the only One capable of doing this was... is... Himself.

God offered to restore man to Himself with the Adamic Covenant.

Certainly not merely "offered..."

I see in the above there is no reply to THE CALL in the Institutes Book 3 Chapter 24 Paragraph 8.

You apparently "looked"... poorly. <smile> And have dismissed all I have said before to this very thing. Yes, God's inward call... I've expounded on that several times, very thoroughly. But, your... well, your "looking poorly" was quite expected.

Was it too much to handle?

LOL!

Your reply is: WELL GOOD

To your statement that you agree with me regarding Jesus's atonement...

Plus I see some cute imoji in some of your replies.

<smile> OKAY-OKAY-OKAY... just playing with you a bit, Gosh. <smile> Come on, laugh a little. You can do it! <smile>

So let's do this:
My time is valuable

Is that why you keep arguing the same things and getting the same answers? You seem to have a different definition of 'valuable' than others. If your time were valuable to you, it seems you would... not... do that...

and apparently yours is not.

Ah, you're worth my time. Really. You're worth it.

Besides the fact that you are UNABLE to defend your posistion...

LOL! Not a fact at all; the record is clear. That is... such an ignorant statement...

but can only smirk at serious conversation.

Sometimes you just have to laugh a little, yes.

So, I do wish you well but will not be responding to you.

Fair enough. Grace and peace to you!

 

[PinSeeker]

Sorry ' bout that Pin.

Ah, no you're not. LOL! But okay, Gosh.

Hey wait, I thought you were done... <smile> What happened to that? <smile>

Suck it up.

Your explanation of God loving Jacob and hating Esau by stating that IT'S SCRIPTURE is laughable.

Well, then give me yours.

Love The Matrix. What a great flick...

Sorry...

No you're not... <smile> You should be, but, hey, you do you.

I like to speak to members that are knowledgeable about both their belief system and Christianity in general...

LOL! Wait... how do you know someone is "unknowledgeable about their beliefs" if you're unknowledgeable about... or only have horrible mischaracterizations of... what they actually believe, even though they correct you on it time after time after time? Or, maybe you're just good at (think you're good at, anyway) setting up strawmen... <smile> ...

and HOW TO...

...how to agree with you. Right. Got it.

exegete the bible using hermeneutics.

That's very important, yes. <smile>

You know, one thing I saw a few pages back... You said to BreadOfLife, "it's people like you that give Catholicism a bad name." Well, we're not talking Catholicism, thank goodness, and I wouldn't say "a bad name," but that strikes me as a very pot-calling-the-kettle-black kind of assertion...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Ritajanice]

Good-natured sparring between Christians about the things of God is a good thing. Now, quarreling and disparaging and even insulting should be refrained from completely, and I would exhort you to do just that

Amen!..Brother...thank you for the reminder....

 

[Lambano]

Sorry ' bout that Pin.

Ah, but I recognized the avatar of a golfer in follow-through, so I can guess the derivation of his user handle. At least he and I share that, though we don't share the same theology.

LOL! Suit yourself, for sure. <smile> Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord, for sure.

I've been around church culture long enough to know that's Christianese for "F*** you!" Or here in the southern US, "Bless your heart!" Why don't we just be honest about it?

Oh well.

 

[Lambano]

First God creates us and decrees that we would sin...the downfall.

Well, the creating part is correct, but after that... absolutely not... One! One mischaracterization!

No, historically she is quite correct.

If I remember the history right, this was a point of contention inside Reformed circles. In the ordo salutis, what's the logical sequencing of the decree to create Man, the decree that Man must fall, the decree to elect some to salvation, and the decree establishing the means of that salvation? There were two schools of thought. Supralapsarianism held that the decree to save some came first. Infralapsarianism held that after ordaining the Fall, then God decreed to save some. My understanding is that prominent Reformed theologians at the time of the Dutch Remonstrants like Theodore Beza taught the Supralapsarian position.

Was the decree that Man would fall active or permissive? The Supralapsarian position is logically an active decree. The decree to save some requires something to save them FROM, so God decreed the Fall. The Infralapsarian position is more representative of modern Reformed thought and is typically (but not necessarily) a permissive decree. Either way is problematic. This was the key point of the Remonstrants. If the decree that man must fall was active, that makes God the Author of Sin. If permissive, that presumes God's foreknowledge of the Fall. Once you bring foreknowledge of the choices of moral free agents into play, then election by foreknowledge of the faith of free agents is also brought into play. In either case, if the Fall was sovereignly decreed, how is Man responsible? Why was that snake allowed free run of the Garden?

 

[PinSeeker]

...we don't share the same theology.

With all due respect, probably because you have many of the same misconceptions and misunderstandings that GodsGrace has hit on time and time again over the course of this discussion (if it could be called that at all, really, speaking of GodsGrace's role at least through the latter part of this exchange).

I've been around church culture long enough to know that's Christianese for "F*** you". See also, "Bless your heart!" Why don't we just be honest about it?

Equating what I said ~ "suit yourself" ~ with "f*** you" is beyond the pale and quite ridiculous, though, in my humble opinion. What I said was very, very mild, especially compared to some of the things she's said to me. But hey, yes, sin is sin, no matter how mild...

Having said that, though, you're right that it was a "parting shot," of sorts, at least, and for that sin I am sorry and repent ~ both to God and to GodsGrace.

Continued below:

 

[PinSeeker]

From above...

The problem, Lambano, really, is ~ unintended... inadvertent... as it may be ~ an underestimation of sin and our natural condition of being dead in it... which is the proper understanding of John Calvin's "total depravity." Many want to make it out to a very wooden "inability to do anything good," or "inability to make good choices," which is ridiculous. Regarding the things themselves, anybody can do good... even great... things in the eyes of God, but even those things are bad/unacceptable things in the eyes of God because they are ~ without faith having been given, so without the righteousness of Christ covering them ~ completely saturated in sin and therefore "filthy rags" to God, Who does not accept... cannot even be in the presence of... sin. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it succinctly but comprehensively, which is just magnificent (emphasis mine): "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by his fall... made himself incapable of life by that covenant..." (chapter 8: Of God's Covenant with Man). And concerning Adam and Eve (and thus all who have come after, from conception), "By this sin (Adam and Eve) fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. This is "total depravity.".

Even "dead in our sin" can sound kind of mild, really. As Jesus says, unless human beings are born again of the Spirit, their father is the devil, and their will is to do their father’s ~ the devil's ~ desires (John 8:44). He also says ~ and you know this as well as I do ~ the whole law is summed up in two commandments, loving God and loving your neighbor, and, keeping that in mind, James writes that even the smallest stumble regarding the law constitutes breaking all of it. And to that I would add what Paul, speaking of the gravity of sin, says of himself (using himself as an example of all Christians; we all suffer from the same "malady"), that he does the very things he now knows he should not do, and also does not do the very things he knows he should do. In other words, though we Christians have been born again of the Spirit and are no longer "totally depraved," we still have its effects in us, even far more than we want to admit, and thus are still prone to sin, and that we all, like he, are "wretched" in the same manner as he, and long for the day when we will finally be free of sin (Romans 7:13-25).

But then he comes to the good news, that even so, since we are in Christ Jesus, we are no longer under condemnation from God for our sin... He has imputed the righteousness of Christ to us, freed us from the law of sin and death. Christ, who took our sin upon Himself, and bore the wrath of God in our place, paying the wages of sin for us on our behalf, reconciling and redeeming us to God once and for all.

Having been predestined to this... to being conformed to the image of Christ Jesus, we have been called by God and justified even in our sin ~ declared righteous, in Christ, of course ~ and now are being sanctified, and we will be ~ will be, not might be" ~ glorified (Romans 8:29-30). Yes, this is all God's action; we are not mentioned at all. But we do play an important part, of course, in the form of good works, but as I have pointed out, Paul says these even these good works have to be ultimately attributed to God, because, as he says, "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10), "it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

Okay, now... (continued below)...

 

[PinSeeker]

From above...

...historically she is quite correct.

Now, perhaps here I am not speaking to exactly what you are referring to as "historically quite correct." but no, He doesn't "decree that we should sin" (I'm not sure what you mean by 'historically,' as God is not a part of human history, but rather the Ruler over it... the great I Am, of course.) And here we should begin to understand this Biblical context of the difference between God's ordination and his decreeing. To say God decrees sin is to attribute sin and sinfulness to God, which is absolutely not the case in any sense.

If I remember the history right, this was a point of contention inside Reformed circles.

There have always been "points of contention" inside any "circle." <smile> One great day it will be so no longer. <smile>

The decree to save some logically requires something to save them FROM.

This ordination (not decree), but yes, absolutely. But yes, God absolutely knew what people would have to be saved from, and how it would have to be done. Ergo, my earlier statements that "nothing took God by surprise," and "there never was any Plan B."

Was the decree that Man would fall active or permissive?

Again, per above this is God's ordination, not His decree. But, active or permissive... that's a great question. The answer? Well, yes. <smile>

That 'yes,' of course, can seem ambiguous to us as finite creatures, but the two are not mutually exclusive; it can be both at the same time, and is. And to this, I would just say, we are not "on the same level" as our infinite God, of course. We can say this about a lot of things... that we can understand the concept, but we cannot quite "get it," or digest it fully, or accept it with complete understanding. As David says in Psalm 139, "O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it," or as Isaiah, quoting God Himself, says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways... For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts," or as Paul says in Romans 11:33-36 (referencing Deuteronomy 29:29, Job 41:11, and Isaiah 40:13), "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?' Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?' For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things."

Either way, does that make God the Author of Sin?

Of course not. The author of sin is the devil, of course. Now, why does God allow evil in His Creation? Or even, why was there evil (Satan) in Eden even before the events of Genesis 3? Well, to this, all we can say, again, is, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord'..." We cannot know; God did what He did, and, well, modifying it just a bit to fit the context here, who are we to answer back to God? Or, as God says to Job, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to Me.
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements ~ surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? ..." And so on for three chapters, 70 unanswerable questions in all...

This was the key point of the Remonstrants.

And even today, to for the many who follow in their footsteps. This doesn't make them "dumb," or "bad people," or "less Christian," or anything like that.

If active (and my understanding is that some theologians like Theodore Beza did take the active decree position), that definitely makes God the Author of Sin.

Disagree. At the very least, Jesus is God, and He was/is without sin, as Scripture attests. Again, it's both active and permissive. But even so, just regarding its active-ness, cannot that be understood in more than just one sense? I have said, several times ~ and I'm far from the only one, even in non-Reformed circles ~ that God uses sin sinlessly, which is very much equivalent to Paul's great statement in Romans 8:28, that "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose." All things, Lambano. All things, including sin. And you know, to say or imply that God is the author of sin is very much parallel to saying or implying that God sanctioned/sanctions the actions of Satan, and even that God Himself is not good at all but evil. Perish the thought.

If permissive, that brings into play foreknowledge.

In the sense of cognitive knowledge beforehand... and thus the capacity to prevent it, right? But again, why does God ~ since the Garden and the Fall, allow evil? Again, who has known the mind of the Lord? And... God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose... All we can do, really, is accept it. But we do know that God does everything He does for His own glory.

If there was foreknowledge of moral free agents involved, then election by foreknowledge of faith of free agents is also brought into play.

Here you are conflating the two very different senses of God's foreknowing, Which I have been very clear about more than once with GodsGrace. The first is a cognitive foreknowledge in the sense of knowing something beforehand, and the second is foreknowledge in the sense of taking action, on God's part in a sovereign, distinguishing, absolutely intimate way ~ even when we were dead in our sins He caused us to be born again; thereby giving us new birth by His Spirit (Ephesians 2:4-10; 1 Peter 1:3-5). And for each one of us, subsequent to this new birth, we work for, serve, even live to God... in this way we in the same sense know Him... "we (Christians) love because He (God, of course) "first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

In either case, if the Fall was sovereignly decreed, how is Man responsible? Why was that snake allowed free run of the Garden?

God's foreordains everything in such a way that He is not accountable for it (see below quote from the WCF). That this is so is certain. How it is so is really beyond our ability to grasp. Jonathan Edwards attempts to wade through these deep waters speaking of God's withdrawal being a negative force wherein evil comes to be. But this is all very speculative. I'll just quote the Westminster Confession of Faith here again... "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass... yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death." Adam solely is responsible for his particular sin in Genesis 3, but he, as the federal head of the human race, passes the condition of sinfulness to us. responsibility to us for our own inevitable sin. Adam became a sinner (dead in his sins, and thus in need of salvation), whereas we are sinners (dead in our sin, and thus in need of salvation) from conception because we are his progeny, and it manifests itself in our particular sins.

So, two things here:

1. I would submit that the Fall was preordained, but not decreed, by God. Our dictionaries will probably tell you that ordaining something and decreeing something are the same thing, and in some cases that's true, but in other cases not true... it always depends on the context, and on this particular subject regarding the Bible and God specifically, the latter holds true, that they are not the same thing.

2. Probably unnecessary, but predestination and foreordination are two very different things in this context also. The contrast is clear here; one group is predestined (Christians), while the other (everyone else) is foreordained. Yes, God could have predestined everyone, but He could have also foreordained everyone, but... He did what He did, for His own glory, and we cannot "answer back to God," to use Paul's words again.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[GodsGrace]

With all due respect, probably because you have many of the same misconceptions and misunderstandings that GodsGrace has hit on time and time again over the course of this discussion (if it could be called that at all, really, speaking of GodsGrace's role at least through the latter part of this exchange).


Equating what I said ~ "suit yourself" ~ with "f*** you" is beyond the pale and quite ridiculous, though, in my humble opinion. What I said was very, very mild, especially compared to some of the things she's said to me. But hey, yes, sin is sin, no matter how mild...

Having said that, though, you're right that it was a "parting shot," of sorts, at least, and for that sin I am sorry and repent ~ both to God and to GodsGrace.

Continued below:

Please tag me in when speaking about me or it's like gossip.

And I'd appreciate it if you'd state that you DO NOT AGREE with mainline Christianity instead of stating that I have misconceptions or misunderstandings about the reformed/calvinist faith.

You see Pin,,,the fact that I don't AGREE with you means that I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR UNORTHODOX SOTERIOLOGY...
It does not mean that I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

And, I also want to make this very clear....
I don't dislike Calvinists per se...although they are the most arrogant Christians I deal with....
But I do believe calvinism is not orthodox, was never taught until Calvin, Knox, Zwigli and the rest --- Calvin being the most charismatic of course.

Since it is NOT ORTHODOX it certainly cannot be considered mainline Christianity but is OUT OF THE FOLD.

Consider getting back into the fold/flock.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks for the lesson...it's good to post stuff like this for those reading along.

For me....I don't do implicit...
Was the resurrection implicit or do we have some kind of documentation we can depend on as Christians??
Yes.
We do.

And,,,,Jesus having 2 wills is all over the NT.
Praying to saints is NOT.

Jesus having 2 will is not explicitly taught in Scripture. It is an implicit teaching.

Challenge: show me where it is taught – chapter and verse, please . . .

The bible never forbids taking cocaine.
So it's OK?

We should not be concluding ANYTHING Bread.
A friend of mine that likes to read up on the saints was told by the new Deacon that she should concentrate on the bible.
Interesting, no?
But he does agree with you of course.

For starters - that’s a silly argument because the Bible preaches sobriety. (1 Thess, 5:6, Tit: 2:2, 1 Pet. 5:8).
Using cocaine would fall into that category.

And your friend’s Deacon is short-sighted if he doesn’t think that there are valuable lessons we can learn from the lives and writings of the saints of the past . . .

Now why would those in heaven have to pray FOR US if we could pray to God ourselves?

Could you please post an ECF that taught that we are to pray to the dead - for whatever reason.
I can't find anything....maybe you could.

Ummmm, firs of all - the Bible tells us to pray for each other (James 5:16).

Why would YOU pray for someone if they can pray for themselves?

Yes Bread...but you see Moses and Elijah DID APPEAR at the transfiguration.
Bad analogy.

HUH??

I never said they didn’t appear at the Transfiguration. They appeared by the power of GOD – not their own power. This is the same way those in Heaven can hear OUR pleas for prayer.

So you say the saints can hear the prayers of a finite number of people...like maybe their families?
How about all those prayers to St. Anthony, Santa Chiara, San Padre Pio (He's a biggie), I think you understand.

But, yeah, if you want to be Catholic, you MUST believe as they do.
Or do you??

Why not?
“Finite” that their not omniscient. Only God is omniscient.

And, why would Padre Pio's intercession be better than anybody else's??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Bread, it's people like you that give Catholicism a bad name.
This really saddens me.

You should be discussing why you believe the doctrine that you do...
NOT putting persons down, calling them name and making them hate the original church that gave us Christianity.
It's embarrassing.

And I’ve been doing this for this entire thread.

I think it’s the fact that I’ve exposed your nonsense over the years that is the source of your bitterness . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who had torah . who held the law
and who faithfully recopied it through the years . THE JEWISH leaders and scribes .
BUT GOD WAS NOT WELL PLEASED WITH THEM .
NOW something a long long long time ago WENT DEAD WRONG in that place .
The thing is GOD ALLOWED the scrips to continue
Just as HE allowed men to recopy torah .
This was for the people . THE PROBLEM IS TOO MANY TRUST IN THE SYSTEM .

And this is why He passed the mantle of Authority to His CHURCH (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23, 1 Tim. 3:15, Eph. 1:22-23) – which He promised would never succumb to the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18).

YOUR problem is that you reject Jesus by rejecting His Church . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

From above...


Now, perhaps here I am not speaking to exactly what you are referring to as "historically quite correct." but no, He doesn't "decree that we should sin" (I'm not sure what you mean by 'historically,' as God is not a part of human history, but rather the Ruler over it... the great I Am, of course.) And here we should begin to understand this Biblical context of the difference between God's ordination and his decreeing.

Pin,,,,God decreeing something and God ordaining something IS EXACTLY THE SAME.
Any plain dictionary will attest to this. You could take the time to look this up..it would be helpful to you.

To say God decrees sin is to attribute sin and sinfulness to God, which is absolutely not the case in any sense.

See. It's you that does not understand Calvinism.
God decrees everything that happens.
He even ordains in which direction every speck of dust will float through the air.

Do you use the Westminster, the 1689?
Which is already wrong....you should be using the bible.
BUT
See Chapter 3, Paragraph 1

I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Let's go through:
1. God ordains WHATSOEVER comes to pass.
2. However, God is not the creater of sin. So, IOW, God decrees the murder, but He is not responsible for it.
3. Then we hear of second causes. But, God is the REASON other causes exist...which means He's the cause of the 2nd cause.
Incredible. No common sense or logic,,,but calvinist soteriology DEMANDS this odd reasoning.


You can align the above with

The Institutes of the Christian Religion
Book 1
Chapter 16
Paragraph 2

If one falls among robbers, or ravenous beasts; if a sudden gust of wind at sea causes shipwreck; if one is struck down by the fall of a house or a tree; if another, when wandering through desert paths, meets with deliverance; or, after being tossed by the waves, arrives in port, and makes some wondrous hair-breadth escape from death—

all these occurrences, prosperous as well as adverse, carnal sense will attribute to fortune. But whose has learned from the mouth of Christ that all the hairs of his head are numbered (Mt. 10:30), will look farther for the cause, and hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God.

With regard to inanimate objects again we must hold that though each is possessed of its peculiar properties, yet all of them exert their force only in so far as directed by the immediate hand of God.

There have always been "points of contention" inside any "circle." <smile> One great day it will be so no longer. <smile>


This ordination (not decree), but yes, absolutely. But yes, God absolutely knew what people would have to be saved from, and how it would have to be done. Ergo, my earlier statements that "nothing took God by surprise," and "there never was any Plan B."

According to YOUR faith...God not only KNEW what people would have to be saved from..
He CAUSED the object of the fall, the reason for the fall, and thus, the fall itself because God had, in YOUR faith...
CAUSED the fall by DECREEING it, ORDAINING it, PREDESTINATING it.

Again, per above this is God's ordination, not His decree. But, active or permissive... that's a great question. The answer? Well, yes. <smile>

In YOUR theology Pin,,,,ACTIVE.

Please stop peddling a "soft" Calvinism which DOES NOT EXIST.
Many are fooled by this....

That 'yes,' of course, can seem ambiguous to us as finite creatures, but the two are not mutually exclusive; it can be both at the same time, and is. And to this, I would just say, we are not "on the same level" as our infinite God, of course. We can say this about a lot of things... that we can understand the concept, but we cannot quite "get it," or digest it fully,

Actually, your theology has many MYSTERIES in it because it creates CONFLICT in scripture, and, as we know, scripture cannot contain conflict.

Kind of silly to bring up the fact that God is infinite but we're not.
Thanks for the news.

God allowed us to know everything we need to know about Him and the method of our salvation.
No need for all these mysteries that are in the reformed faith.

or accept it with complete understanding. As David says in Psalm 139, "O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it," or as Isaiah, quoting God Himself, says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways... For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts," or as Paul says in Romans 11:33-36 (referencing Deuteronomy 29:29, Job 41:11, and Isaiah 40:13), "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?' Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?' For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things."

How about dealing with the facts?
You sure like to talk about NOTHING.

Of course not. The author of sin is the devil, of course.

Post something please.
From any writing that you desire.
Calvinism does not require a devil because they make God to be the devil.
This is why Calvinism is blasphemous.

Your theologians of right now attest to the fact that God creates sin:
Doug Wilson, John Piper, even RC Sproul.
Need video?
Or are John Calvin's statements enough for you?

Now, why does God allow evil in His Creation? Or even, why was there evil (Satan) in Eden even before the events of Genesis 3? Well, to this, all we can say, again, is, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord'..." We cannot know; God did what He did, and, well, modifying it just a bit to fit the context here, who are we to answer back to God? Or, as God says to Job, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to Me.
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements ~ surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? ..." And so on for three chapters, 70 unanswerable questions in all...

Yeah, you got 100% on writing,
but in theology you're striking out.

WE mainline Christians believe God ALLOWS evil....
In case you haven't heard, YOUR faith believes God CREATES evil.
And I guess you can't bring up Isaiah 45:7 having taken the stand you have.....
(sweet).

And even today, to for the many who follow in their footsteps. This doesn't make them "dumb," or "bad people," or "less Christian," or anything like that.


Disagree. At the very least, Jesus is God, and He was/is without sin, as Scripture attests. Again, it's both active and permissive. But even so, just regarding its active-ness, cannot that be understood in more than just one sense? I have said, several times ~ and I'm far from the only one, even in non-Reformed circles ~ that God uses sin sinlessly, which is very much equivalent to Paul's great statement in Romans 8:28, that "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose." All things, Lambano. All things, including sin. And you know, to say or imply that God is the author of sin is very much parallel to saying or implying that God sanctioned/sanctions the actions of Satan, and even that God Himself is not good at all but evil. Perish the thought.

Is there any passage in Romans that the reformed understand?
Apparently not.
And, again, YOU make God to be evil....
not the rest of us.


No need to lecture @Lambano regarding this.

Enough of this.
study up on what you believe Pin....
You got a few little facts wrong.

 

[BreadOfLife]

First you tried to prove with the new testament that prayers for the dead is Biblical.
Now you are changing your story and claiming you did not claim prayers for the dead is in the new testament.
Very dishonest.
This is foolishness.
Listen very carefully to BreadofLife's logic
Since the Bible does not say anything against praying to the dead, therefore it is approved of by God.

Basically all this is, is "well you didn't say not to" argument.

Since God did not say not to pray to the dead it is ok to pray to the dead.

Ummm, WHO’S being dishonest??

This isn’t a “well, you didn’t say not to” argument. I showed explicit Biblical proof that those in Heaven are interceding on our behalf (Rev. 5:8).

YOU haven’t offered a shred of Scripture to refute this . . .

The Bible never says you cannot pray to your dead grandma so its allowed.
Listen: I tell you to go buy bread at the store with my credit card.
You come back with the bread and new shoes a new watch a new jacket and a haircut.
Breadoflife, why did you come back with all these things?
I told you to buy bread.
Your logic: "well you did not say not to so that makes it allowed"

No one who understands logic reasons this way.
But apparently Catholics do and no wonder their are so many additions in their doctrines to the Bible.
The Bible does not say you cannot smoke so I guess it is allowed.
On and on it never ends with this foolish reasoning.

Revelation 5:8,
Bread of life says the fictious four living creatures and twenty four elders are evidence that christians pray for us in hades and therefore we can pray to them.
This is total desperation to use verses out of revelation which is pure symbolism not actual saints that have died.
- and when he had taken the book the four beasts and twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours which are the prayers of saints
Can I also pray to the four beasts in heaven? Can they also pray for me Breadoflife?
Fictitious creatures, its symbolism.
Notice that the prayers of the saints are not dead saints.

Psalm 141:2,
- let my(living) prayer be set forth before thee as incense and the lifting up of my hands(dead saints dont have hands) as the evening sacrifice

All you are going to find in the Scriptures, is living people praying to God.
Nowhere will you find dead people praying to the living nor the living praying to the dead.

More idiotic and dishonest arguments.

For starters - the Bible doesn’t shown anybody in Heaven with an ashtray.
It DOES, however, show intercession from those in Heaven.

You ARE correct about ONE thing: The prayers of the saints in Rev. 5:8 are the prayers of the LIVING. They are being taken to God BY those in Heaven on our behalf.

You find it in the apocrypha.
But BreadofLife claims it's in the Bible.
Now he claims it is not.

Prayers for the dead are in the Deuterocanonical Books like 2 Macc. 12:42-46.

Just because YOU reject parts of the Bible doesn't make them "untrue" . . .

The twenty four elders are also fictitious. Revelation is using symbolism.
There are no dead saints in this verse as BreadofLife wants to try and decieve me into believing.

Above He is denying that He used the Bible as evidence for praying to the dead.
Below you will see he at first tried to use Scripture but failed.
Then changed his argument claiming he never claimed the Bible does teach praying to the dead.

HUH??

I said that your demanding Scriptural proof for all of my claims shows that you
adhere to the false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It’s YOU who keeps denying this . . .

Here below BreadofLife tries to use the Bible to prove praying to the dead.

Breadoflife uses any tactics he can to win a debate.
Now listen as he attacks my intelligence with Ad hominem.

No ad hominem. I just wish that you could at least TRY to refute anything I’ve said.

YOU are the one vomiting out ad hominem attacks . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

2 Pt 1.3
His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

Beautiful verse – but it doesn’t support Sola Scriptura . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus having 2 will is not explicitly taught in Scripture. It is an implicit teaching.

Challenge: show me where it is taught – chapter and verse, please . . .

Chapter and verse? You think I'm Protestant? Cute.

So, really you're statement makes no sense,,,,but I think this is what you want:


And hence in the sixth Council held at Constantinople [Act. 18] it was decreed that it must be said that there are two wills in Christ, in the following passage: "In accordance with what the Prophets of old taught us concerning Christ, and as He taught us Himself, and the Symbol of the Holy Fathers has handed down to us, we confess two natural wills in Him and two natural operations." And this much it was necessary to say. For it is manifest that the Son of God assumed a perfect human nature, as was shown above (Article 5; III:9:1). Now the will pertains to the perfection of human nature, being one of its natural powers, even as the intellect, as was stated in I:79 and I:80. Hence we must say that the Son of God assumed a human will, together with human nature. Now by the assumption of human nature the Son of God suffered no diminution of what pertains to His Divine Nature, to which it belongs to have a will, as was said in the I:19:1. Hence it must be said that there are two wills in Christ, i.e. one human, the other Divine.


This will also be helpful:


Well, Christ is one person, therefore He must have one will.” But the way the church has thought about this—and I think correctly thought about it—is that if Jesus only had one will, then it must be the divine will, because He had a divine will before the incarnation. If He only has one will, then He doesn’t have a human will. And if He doesn’t have a human will, does He have a full human nature? I think that’s a fair question and a correct way to approach this problem. Isn’t a human will an essential element of a human nature? And if Jesus didn’t have a human will, could He really have been tempted in the fullness of His humanity? Hebrews tells us very clearly that Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are, yet without sin. And that temptation would’ve been significantly different if only the divine will of Jesus had been tempted and not the human will.

I understand why we have a kind of instinctive reaction—well, if Jesus has two wills, might they have ever been in conflict? Might the human will have willed one thing, and the divine will another? I think the church was right in analyzing that to say “no,” since each will is operated by the person, there can never be a conflict between the two wills. The two wills will always be in harmony. And yet each of the natures would be incomplete if each nature didn’t have its own full and complete divine will and human will. I really do think it’s helpful to realize that Jesus experienced a full and complete humanity. That’s why Dyothelitism is the orthodox position that all of those hearing us should embrace enthusiastically.

For starters - that’s a silly argument because the Bible preaches sobriety. (1 Thess, 5:6, Tit: 2:2, 1 Pet. 5:8).
Using cocaine would fall into that category.

And your friend’s Deacon is short-sighted if he doesn’t think that there are valuable lessons we can learn from the lives and writings of the saints of the past . . .

You're a silly man Bread.
Thinking that he is a smart man.
THE BIBLE COMES FIRST in CHRISTIANITY.
Did I say there are not valuable lessons?

How do YOU pass your time?
By reading about saints or by reading the bible so you could reply to all these Protestants that attack you?

Ummmm, firs of all - the Bible tells us to pray for each other (James 5:16).

Why would YOU pray for someone if they can pray for themselves?

HUH??

I know. No Catholic can reply to this question.
Wonder why?

I never said they didn’t appear at the Transfiguration. They appeared by the power of GOD – not their own power. This is the same way those in Heaven can hear OUR pleas for prayer.

Who said they didn't appear?
Are you getting on in years?

Why not?
“Finite” that their not omniscient. Only God is omniscient.

And, why would Padre Pio's intercession be better than anybody else's??

Bread, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
And I don't have much time.

 

[GodsGrace]

And I’ve been doing this for this entire thread.

I think it’s the fact that I’ve exposed your nonsense over the years that is the source of your bitterness . . .

Ohhhh.
I'm soooo bitter!
Wanna have a cappuccio with me?

 

[Titus]

This isn’t a “well, you didn’t say not to” argument. I showed explicit Biblical proof that those in Heaven are interceding on our behalf (Rev. 5:8)

You base your whole argument on fictitious creatures in heaven.
Revelation is full of symbolism.
You are taking Revelation 5:8 literal.

Show in the passage where saints are interceding on our behalf?
Doesnt even mention real human beings in the passage.

Ummm, WHO’S being dishonest?

You

 

[GodsGrace]

You base your whole argument on fictitious creatures in heaven.
Revelation is full of symbolism.
You are taking Revelation 5:8 literal.

Show in the passage where saints are interceding on our behalf?
Doesnt even mention real human beings in the passage.


You

Hi Titus
I make no claim to be knowledgeable re Revelation. There are just a few verses I'd use in that book for support of any doctrine.

Just want to say that I agree with you....I don't see anything about praying to the souls in heaven.

My main question would be: HOW could they hear? Only God is omnipresent.

If Bread were really honest, he'd take the time to explain Rev. 5:8 to clarify his position.

No matter. I kind of hope those up in heaven DO NOT see us or can hear what is going on down here.
Heaven is supposed to be a happy place, and if they knew what we go through, I don't think they'd be too happy about it.